Conspiracy theories proliferate in the blogosphere, via YouTube videos, and on social media. As the Internet penetrates further into our lives, it can seem like these beliefs become more common. This may be a side effect of communal reinforcement engendered by modern communication — irrespective of what evidence could confirm or deny these ideas, they seem to become more weighty and relevant the more our friends share them, the higher their view counts become on YouTube, or the more they show up in Google searches.

Using Occam's Razor can help radical thinkers focus on important facts over flights of fancy.
It concerns me when these theories appear among my activist friends, because I think it makes the entire movement look bad when we stray from fact into fantasy. Rather than address any specific conspiracy theory, I want to focus on a tool which I believe can help us focus on reality and its many tangible ills. That tool is Occam’s Razor, also known as the Principle of Simplicity (or the Principle of Parsimony if you want a nice five-dollar word).
Occam’s Razor: Simpler is Better
Occam’s Razor is named for William of Ockham, even though he neither invented the concept nor called it a razor. At its heart, the razor is the idea that simpler ideas are more likely to be true.
From the Skeptic’s Dictionary entry on Occam’s Razor:
Today, we think of the principle of parsimony as a heuristic device. We don’t assume that the simpler theory is correct and the more complex one false. We know from experience that more often than not the theory that requires more complicated machinations is wrong. Until proved otherwise, the more complex theory competing with a simpler explanation should be put on the back burner, but not thrown onto the trash heap of history until proven false.
It’s a complex world built on complex causes and effects. Science offers many examples where a simpler explanation is wrong. Yet it’s best to focus on simpler possibilities first, especially those with fewer variables. For example, an explanation of a given event which requires a few people hiding illegal or unethical acts is simpler than one which requires more. Simpler theories are not just more likely, but also easier to prove. Like Sherlock Holmes suggests, the improbable is sometimes true but first we must conclusively eliminate the rest.
The Superhero Metaphor: Remember Human Frailty
Above, I mentioned that simpler theories involve fewer people. Humans are capable of great works of collaboration but they are terrible at keeping big secrets. Applying Occam’s Razor, it’s simpler to assume that human frailty — greed, fear, hatred, the most base self-interest — are at the root of many problems before looking to more complicated scenarios. If one scenario involves a few powerful people openly acting to increase their already swollen bottom line, or a single person lashing out at the world out of pain or fear, it’s probably more likely than the scenario that involves dozens or even hundreds of disparate people maintaining a false story in lockstep, without anyone breaking a veil of secrecy. It’s one thing to suggest that a handful of government officials might work to cover up or spin an event, but far more complex to imagine scientists, first responders, multiple media sources of all political leanings, and everyday people colluding to do the same.
The simpler view is arguably a more cynical one, sadly. There’s something comforting in some conspiracy theories — what I might call the Superhero Metaphor. Imagining that global warming is just a supervillain in colorful tights which Captain Planet could punch in the nose till he surrendered is easier than tackling the full complex scope of the problem. Likewise, it is comforting to think a handful of evil people might have caused a terrible event or trend, because arresting them would be far easier than coping with the real problems of modern global human society and the realities of human mortality and weakness. Despite the seeming simplicity of these imagined supervillains, the reality of anyone achieving such power would be quite complex.
Out of the The Matrix: Focus on the Evil We Know
Occam’s Razor is only a tool. It cannot provide answers itself; it can only help a thinker choose between possibilities. It can lead to false conclusions…. False conclusions can also come from the expectations of the observer. –Dr. William F. Williams (ed.), The Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience
It’s possible — even probable — that many terrible things are going on behind the scenes in world politics. One reason that conspiracy theories gain traction is that there are ample reasons to distrust our government based on proven facts. We know that they negotiate away the best interests of the people through treaties like the Trans-Pacific Partnership and we know that government agents have colluded to monitor activist movements over the decades from the American Indian Movement to Occupy Wall St. But stories are built by hard work — whistleblowers, FOIA requests, investigative journalism, even hacktivism — not appeals to emotion, ‘what if’ games and assembling strings of coincidence.
Since I’m using pop culture already, I am going to call this the Matrix Metaphor — it’s possible we could all be brains in vats, but apart from providing entertaining conversation over bong rips this concept does us little good in the here and now. We know that corporate capitalism encourages bankers to collude in wrecking our economy and pipeline companies to despoil our environment without needing to imagine the Illuminati or extra-dimensional lizard beings pulling their strings.
Our focus as activists should be on reacting to what we know to be true, rather than what might. To use a less fantastical example, we know that recently released FBI files reveal that someone planned sniper attacks on Occupy leaders and that the FBI does not seem to have warned anyone in danger. This gives activists plenty to work with without anyone needing to jump to conclusions about government-led assassination plots.
Teaching Common Sense?
From the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy on William of Ockham:
At one level, this is just common sense. Suppose your car suddenly stops running and your fuel gauge indicates an empty gas tank. It would be silly to hypothesize both that you are out of gas and that you are out of oil.
In writing this, I realize that a lot of this is common sense, and common sense is frequently a poor match for passionate human belief. Having opened our minds to the possibility that there’s more to the world than the picture provided by the mainstream media, it’s easy to fall down the rabbit hole. Though I doubt my words will make any true believer think twice about a favorite conspiracy, I hope they’ll encourage a few readers to evaluate the stories that come our way whether the source is the TV news or our Facebook friends.
Photo by Ryan Scott released under a Creative Commons No Derivatives License.



66 Comments

Good advice Kit, do you know if anyone is demanding the identity of the assassins mentioned in the FBI report?
I wrote this in response to some recent conspiracy-theory type social media topics I’ve seen too often among people who I otherwise respect. But also because my last post on activism (3 Ways Movements Spread Civil Disobedience) was well received.
If there’s other topics you’d like to see me cover, or just want more on topics like this please let me know here in the comments.
I believe the original group which made the first FOIA request is suing to get more of the information, but I don’t have the details close at hand.
Since you and others from Occupy are the possible targets of these assassins it might be a good idea to follow up on this story. I don’t mean to spread paranoia but they are apparently still out there and free to act.
Despite that you don’t want to address anything specific, I think you need to demonstrate that it is the left side of the political spectrum that needs this admonition.
When you single-out the Left in this manner, the undercurrent is you are accusing them of somehow being careless with the facts surrounding meaningful events, or of being gullible.
If you have a pet project, get it out in the open and let us judge where your investigative instincts take you on the particular contentious issue.
I might agree with you, but for some reason, I suspect that you are going to state the official Establishment version of your nemesis argument.
What is it that you wish all Leftists would fall into line about?? Occam’s Razor is very old news.
We simply don’t know anything more about them to my knowledge. They could have been arrested. They could be free to act. They could have voluntarily disarmed themselves and joined a free love cult. We have no idea, but it is worth following up on. How would we do this?
I am afraid you misunderstand me if you think I have an axe to grind with either the ‘left’ or the ‘right.’ I don’t consider myself a member of either. I am not intending to call anyone out but to encourage critical thinking on all matters.
I certainly agree that Occam’s Razor is very old news — centuries old, as the links in my article attest.
Good piece – thank you. I do find that we often want or perhaps need to invent major conspiracy based explanations in part because that is often more reassuring than analyzing the rather mundane but pervasive evil in our “system.” Facing the Illuminati is easier for many to handle than say the fact that america is not so “exceptional.”
I did not misunderstand.
Your claim to neutrality does not follow
from the words you wrote.
Specifically, it appears that you did not mean
to write this sentence on a blog overwhelmingly
Leftist in its participants:
“It concerns me when these theories appear among
my activist friends, because I think it makes
the entire movement look bad when we stray
from fact into fantasy.”
What “activist friends”?
I have to assume you are addressing yourself
to your activist friends right here, no?
Written to Firedoglake, that sounds like a critique
of the people who might be in the habit of
visiting this rather Leftist web site.
Upon correcting yourself in the subsequent post,
my request for more info is withdrawn.
Yes exactly. We could put a few banksters in jail, but even when we can point to specific villains it does nothing to solve the problem that allows someone to become the Koch Brothers… In a way of course this is favoring complexity, which is where this tool breaks down a bit.
But the Koch Brothers are nothing new — they aren’t a remarkable new breed of manipulators, but the latest in a long line of wealthy who used their money to influence political power. America becomes just like any other politically ‘corrupt’ nation (if corruption is defined by susceptibility to bribery), and this doesn’t require any special collusion other than the usual capitalistic payment for services rendered.
We all receive a constant flow of information and my intention in this article is to encourage more critical thinking in evaluating it. I’ve seen the need for this among members of almost every possible part of the political landscape, including Occupiers, hippies, punks, Libertarians, Republicans, Democrats, socialists, communists, anarchists, radicals, and yes, members of the ‘Left.’
I don’t intend it as a ‘critique’ of anyone. All human beings are subject to failings in logic, myself absolutely included. I am aware of Occam’s Razor, but I still need to be reminded to use it and other heuristic tools from time to time. My intention is to do this gently for everyone who reads these words.
Of course, I have my beliefs and someone out there thinks something I believe to be true is completely a crock. I’m also trying to avoid debate of any specific topics here because I want to focus on the tools not the issues in this post. To get into specific topics would be to inevitably tumble down the very rabbit hole I’m warning against, and distract from the subject at hand.
Dear Kit:
Thanks for striking this blow for sanity, even though you knew full well you were stepping into the hornet’s nest by doing so.
There are too many people who are not only ignorant of Occam’s Razor, but apparently quite proud of that ignorance, just as they are proud of not knowing or understanding that steel, like any other metal, loses strength well before it melts.
Exactly. See for example the utter cluelessness of Alan Simpson on how Social Security works and is funded — you and I could grab a handful of FDL readers at random and almost all of them would likely know more about Social Security than he does.
Deleted at poster’s request. –MyFDL Editor
Might we agree that the breadth of “bad-action” has enlarged in years recent? Might we also agree that the gross demand on activist attention is thereby multiplied? I suspect these simplifying heuristics are not well considered in present circumstance.
For example: “Our focus as activists should be on reacting to what we know to be true”. Well, ignoring the contradiction of activists reacting, this parallels what keeps academics conservative and what keeps the Bushes in moola. It’s also a paradigm for many who would prefer not to view the pile of bones they stand on.
Your mortal visitation occurs in one of, if not the most damning phases of mankind. Wouldn’t have been better if more people had had been infected by wild-eyed activism much earlier?
So yes, discipline is most essential, but the necessity of collectively entertaining and assessing explanations which are more complicated than is convenient for one Occam, well, that should not be ruled out. Keeping comrades from being snared by Alex Jones deserves your thought. But, then, again, how did it happen that he called Obama on his Deception so early, hmmm?
In Machiavellian times, Occam doesn’t fair well.
Well done, Kit. Strongly recommended. Besides Occam’s Razor, I also use this one:
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Something else that conspiracy theorists usually disdain.
Great post, Kit. Very sound & thoughtful.
I’m sorry but as I’ve said elsewhere I’m not going to address specific conspiracy theories (or even alternate explanations for specific events) in this thread & would ask others to focus as well. One reason that so many sites discourage these topics is that to do so is to dive down a rabbit hole from which there is no return to the topic at hand, which in this case is heuristic tools for analyzing stories on news media, social media, and other information sources.
While I recognize that a segment of the Inforwars-reading public was inspired to join Occupy and other modern movements, I don’t believe we need the Alex Jones’ types in this world to inspire people to “wild-eyed activism.”
As I said in my article, even when we focus on the topics where we have solid proof there is so much to be outraged about. Corporate money in politics and its influence, the coming explosion of the carbon bomb due to the Keystone Pipeline and its ilk, growing callousness toward inequality and poverty, the war on women’s rights and sexual freedom, the drug war, drone strikes, documented government suppression of free speech rights through laws like the NDAA and FBI/DHS monitoring of movements, and on and on. All of these are documented by real, factual journalism and solid evidence — not speculation, rumor-mongering, and appeals to emotion.
Further, I would recommend reading Andy Greenberg’s This Machine Kills Secrets, which I believe was one of the best books of 2012 and was featured in a Firedoglake Book Salon. He compellingly argues that in our modern, hyper-connected world of pervasive Internet, whistleblowers and hacktivists it becomes harder than ever to keep anything secret. It becomes harder to me to believe that there’s NOT the equivalent of a Deep Throat for any given scenario, the more time goes on.
My point though is that if the people aren’t in the streets outraged at what is being done to them, the problem isn’t that they need a conspiracy to be outraged about even more than they were before. It’s because of other factors — they don’t believe they have power or they believe they are still in the “safe” middle class where it doesn’t affect them or any number of other factors too long and off topic to go into here.
Appealing to logic and simplicity is not an appeal to stay calm and complacent. There’s plenty of fact-based, proven outrage where we can focus our attentions. Let’s educate people about their power, educate them about what we know, and help them to take real steps to change the things we can reach in the here and now.
Yes, OB, I agree completely. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence to prove them — they often fall apart much more easily.
My only concern about my article is that by mentioning conspiracy theories at all, I don’t discourage people from applying Occam’s Razor and other similar tools to smaller stories that come our way. We build a really solid picture of our world from tiny building blocks, from the facts up not from conclusions down, and this doesn’t just apply to wild-eyed theories of faked moon landings (oops, there I go mentioning a specific conspiracy theory) but also to Occupy snipers and the latest bank-related rumors…
Thank you, I’m glad you enjoyed this piece. There’s a lot of factors that come into play in conspiracy theories, which is why I tried to focus on just a small piece of the puzzle and show how it can be applied to the constant flow of “breaking” stories & info we all get, too.
Thanks Jane!
Okay but in this case, the presentation of what I see as being you main heuristic tool is not even a correct presentation. Occam’s razor is NOT about taking the simplest explanation for a problem that humanity is trying to understand. If that was the case, then primitive humanity’s explanation for an eclipse – that the moon has swallowed the sun, would be the correct explanation.
Rather, what people attempting to understand a specific reality and solve for that reality must undertake is this: “do not multiply entities unnecessarily”.
If an apple falls off a tree branch, Susan can say “The fairies moved it”. Alice can explain the gravitational
theory; Penelope can also explain gravitational theory but add that gravitons have pretty fairy wings.
Explanation A is the simplest, but does it actually explain anything? Explanation C explains all the facts but adds a spurious entity (“fairy wings”) that adds nothing . Hence, it can be cut by Occam’s razor to yield explanation B.
Or as Einstein is alleged to have stated – “Everything
should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler”.
And in any discussion of reality – it does seem that the person introducing the discussion must allow for examples. Inductive reasoning demands examples, and also, “example specific” situations can be brought up to demonstrate the workings of an analytical mind, without anyone demanding that any or all of the examples are to be believed. For instance, in the case above, I certainly am not suggesting that X amount of FDL members must believe in Susan’s statement about an apple falling off the tree due to fairy activity.
From your comment:
From my article:
So it would seem we agree that Occam’s Razor is not about always accepting the simpler answer.
However, I do not agree that I must engage in debates about specific examples of conspiracy theories and how we might apply Occam’s Razor to it in order to discuss Occam’s Razor. That discussion seems to be going fine without that, elsewhere on this post. As I said to Ohio Barbarian, while I often wish it were applied to what are called conspiracy theories, I just as often see it’s need in judging the every day “breaking news” and infostream we take in and digest online.
Thank you for a thoughtful and well needed post. It applies to a lot of areas of our lives.
Serious question:
Why is any theory contrary to the “official” story of 9/11 dismissed as a “conspiracy theory” when, in fact, the government’s “official” story is LITERALLY also a conspiracy theory? That there were these guys hanging around Bin Laden who decided to blow up the Twin Towers, etc.?
And, BTW, many of the 9/11 “hijackers” are alive and well: http://guardian.150m.com/september-eleven/hijackers-alive.htm
I’ll agree with you if you’re willing to add asterisks to a few topics.
I was already out in the workplace when JFK was shot. It pains me to know that I’ll probably die before most of the Warren Commission files (let alone the truth) are put in the public domain.
I’m hard pressed to believe that Lee Harvey Oswald planned and carried out a lone wolf attack. Personally, I rather favor the theory of the late Jonathan Kwitny, that it was tied to the mob, either about Sam Giancana’s girl friend or about Meyer Lansky’s lost investments in Cuba.
Still, I’ll buy Lone Lee Harvey a lot easier than Lone James Earl Ray.
Won’t live long enough to read the real story on that one either.
We’re not doing this here, folks. There are other places to debate 9/11 theories, conspiracies or otherwise.
Again, please be respectful of the topic of this discussion. We are not delving into individual conspiracy theories here.
Here a case where the simpler theory have been proven wrong, again and again:
Thanks Bev!
Pshaw. Next you’ll be telling me that Rube Goldberg’s machines don’t work.
Very true! The Standard Model is a great example of the success of the scientific process, where we build models carefully through fact based experimentation and evidence, disprove pieces of them, and continue to build new, better models.
It seems to me the Standard Model is a perfect example of starting with the simplest answer and gradually adding complexity.
It’s a harsh world out there, outside of cartoons. Looney Tunes left me very ill-prepared for adult life, as well.
One of the big problems though of applying The Razor ™ (or the solution to its predecessor- the Gordian Knot) to problems is as softly stated by Albert Einstein in elismattu’s observation and more bluntly stated by H.L. Mencken: “For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong.”
These simply stated wrong answers are easily seized on, repeated until they become part of the collective unconciousness and eventually displaced leaving antipathy or animosity towards the subject. For example, consider the many medical studies that mention correlations which are then taken as causations. The simple answers become the next wave of conspiracy fodder.
Deleted at poster’s request. –MyFDL Editor
That is important to keep in mind. I think an example of this is something like “We only use 90% of our brains,” which is completely false but still repeated as truth, and then becomes the basis of other theories moving forward. If I write more on these topics, I’d like to approach issues like collective reinforcement, confirmation bias, and apophenia for those engaged in activism, street journalism, and so on.
Thank you for a link — I assume that people interested in discussing the specific theories or specific events can go there to continue the discussion as it is off topic here.
I actually had this very conversation this morning with my 24 yr. old son that watches these conspiracy videos on Youtube and starts ranting to us about them. I even told him about using Occam’s Razor. I just sent him this excellent post to further our discussion. How timely.
Please no personal attacks. There is also no “Carnacing” on FDL — do not assume you know the intentions of others. –MyFDL Editor
Thanks for the link and the excellent comment.
Haven’t read all the wisdom…but so nice to see you.
No one on Wall Street could understand or add anything useful or insightful to this conversation. Thanks for this “prompt” for the brain.
I am taking down all my remarks. I have decided that you do wish to have a discussion in which you define the parameters of this new way of viewing historical events.
Although I strongly disagree with you that anyone can develop an overview of a proper way of thinking about events without including the particulars of any events (“The individual informs the whole,” being my guiding principle in this,) it is your topic and I am butting out. If the software here at FDL permits, my remarks will be gone in five minutes.
Comments referencing specific topics have been removed per your request. –MyFDL Editor
You’re trying to have q sensible discussion with your 24 year old son???
Good luck with that.
Take my advice, wait ’til he turns 35. You’ll be much smarter then.:-)
Wonderful that this is so timely for you. Thanks for stopping by.
You are most welcome.
Nice of you to hang around and take comments and questions.
Guess you’re not a member of the Bill Belichick Fan Club. :-)
…and TINC.
I do my best. I am something of a captive audience here on FDL during the weekdays anyway! :)
I think I see your point. So, if two very high government officials agree to be interviewed and testify only under the condition that it not be under oath, then simplicity would favor the explanation that they intend to lie.
Occam’s razor says that we should accept the simplest explanation that fits the facts. If the simple explanation doesn’t fit, and can’t be tweaked to fit, then it doesn’t work, and we have to switch to a less simple explanation.
Even in such cases the simpler (and wrong) explanation can still be a useful approximation. We know that Newton’s laws of motion and gravity are wrong, but as long as nothing’s moving at a large fraction of the speed of light and gravity isn’t too strong, the errors involved are miniscule and the math is a lot easier, so we don’t have to do everything with relativity and quantum theory.
You could have done worse with the bait “wild-eyed activism”. I thank you for not going too far overboard. Still, Alex Jones was a convenient example; furthermore I thought you were attempting a theoretical discussion while avoiding particulars.
The struggle to address conspiracies is prevalent. In the abstract, wild-eyed activism is often a waste of time; it is inefficient. Castigating “conspiracy theory” was justified on these grounds. However, it became a reflex. I reference Hedges piece published today:
I claim that “sublime madness” is not just an inspiration, it is essential for understanding and countering the “spiritual wickedness in high places”. Americans have been programmed to believe that rationality explains success and to imitate it for their own. It is difficult for many Americans to comprehend the framework that has trapped them; they are intellectually caged. That cage dis-empowers and justifies their entrapment.
“Rationality” is also a trap.
Of course there is documented reason to be enraged. But I would not argue that myths are necessary to radicalize. That would be exploitation as well. I argue that closing off speculation, in the abstract, by rules, would be most foolish at this time. Even though speculation frustrates the marshaling of activist force, programmatic suppression itself would be suspect.
I read Greenberg’s Salon but I came away very dubious that the internet will kill all predatory secrets. I disclose that that was my prejudice beforehand; perhaps you would care to explain why that is an inaccurate reading.
I think “educating” people is not enough. They will be deprogrammed as well. Activists must be conscious of this necessity.
Agreed! Thanks for stopping by.
I didn’t intend the phrase wild-eyed activism as bait in any way — I was quoting your turn of phrase back to you and trying to respond constructively. Thanks for doing so in kind.
I will read the Hedges piece you linked and try to reply again later, time permitting.
Please review the Rule of Carnac and other rules for conduct on MyFDL. -MyFDL Editor
Hi, Kit: I believe I’m long past due ringing you up on the “celly” (another stupid Whit saying — I’m just racking ‘em up here of late, I’m telling ya). What can I say except I suspect you also know what it means to be way NNW of New Orleans (here I go again). Later, before I max out or something…at any rate, thanks for the “short, sharp, shock”?
I have two big problems with this post.
First, you speak as if Occam’s Razor were a cure-all. It is not: as elisemattu @23 notes above, it, or what passes for it, can be used to prove all kinds of things (I’m not clear if this is part of what she subsequently wanted deleted, but the comment is cogent), and other examples arise in the religious sphere where the idea originally arose. Too much depends on underlying unconscious assumptions.
Second, you speak as if the notion of “conspiracy theory” were well-defined, and that’s not always true. Marxism, for example, is a theory (or meta-theory to be more precise) about how the world works where certain social realities cause other social realities in a naturalistic way, and finds it useful to speak in terms of concepts like class struggle, but some people infer from this that Marxists believe there is a smoke-filled room where a cabal of rich people plots against the proletariat, viz., a conspiracy theory. (I know this from personal experience some years ago.) To put it another way, one can say that the Warren Commission’s single assassin theory is nonsensical without claiming to know precisely who or what was involved in killing JFK.
Certainly there is some off-the-wall bloviage in progressive discourse, and if your intent is to encourage critical thinking more power to you, but I think common sense is usually more useful there than fancy conceptual frameworks imported from other spheres of endeavor.
This post by Rob Kall of opednews.com came in this morning’s email. The title caught my eye, but I haven’t had tome to read it yet. It may be of interest on this thread.
A Proposed Standardized Scientific Approach to Assessing Conspiracy Theories and Questions
(An eye-piercing website design, sorry.)
@fredcdobbs: I hope you don’t leave. That said, I noticed on a long thread this morning that some of the moderator comments erased comments that I’d seen, and knew weren’t attacks of any sort. But: the history of the real comments were gone, and it could easily be construed by those who hadn’t seen the originals…that attacks had been made. Kind of a pity, imo.
I reviewed the article you linked to by Chris Hedges, and I am glad to have read it, thank you. I do not always agree with Hedges but always find him worth reading, and in this case I agree with his words. We do need the sort of ‘sacred madness’ to effect powerful change. This is the kind of impulse I see in musicians like Lupe Fiasco or Boots Riley, in people making giant puppets and creating street theater.
I don’t think rationality and passionate creativity or ritual protest are mutually exclusive, however, or that my call to logical thinking in this post somehow precludes ALSO having a place in our lives and our movements for other kinds of expression. We can see this in action right now — climate scientists used logic and careful evidence building to create a picture of the threat posed by the Keystone Pipeline, then the DC activists & the Tar Sands Blockade reacted through street theater, direct action, protest, civil disobedience, music, art…
I don’t think Chris Hedges believes that either, or he wouldn’t spend years putting together a book like Days of Destruction, Days of Revolt — it contains passion and art, but also many many hours of difficult, evidence-based journalism.
I apologize that you got that impression, as it wasn’t my intention. Here’s a quote from the Skeptic’s Dictionary which I used in my article, and which I will repost for emphasis.
Occam’s Razor is merely one useful tool in our tool boxes. To call it the only useful tool would be madness. Maybe its less useful than what you call common sense. To me, its a piece of common sense that’s worth emphasizing further.
Of course not, which is another reason there’s no point in debating specific theories here. While the origin point of this article were certain theories which I saw taking hold among my circle of activist friends and allies, the intention of the article was to encourage critical thinking.
It is not my contention (nor Hedges’) that rationality and passionate creativity are mutually exclusive, nor that logical thinking and “other kinds of expression” (logical thinking is not “a kind of expression”) are.
I am afraid you are averse to understanding my perspective, one which I would prefer to be addressed with appropriate objection. If you desire to engage it, I would be kind enough to address questions or objections.
I find that this kind of statement usually marks the end of a conversation but if you try to explain your viewpoint I will try to understand.
Tell me, what do you think of the Theater of the Oppressed?
I’m not an expert but I think it’s great. I have some friends in Chicago who lead Theater of the Oppressed workshops regularly and wish someone was doing that kind of thing here in Austin.
Since we seem to be straying from the topic and we’re about to scroll off the recent posts as well, feel free to take this to the Watercooler.